Tel-Chai Nation

The San Francisco Chronicle reveals that even the book on which Steven Spielberg and his hired writer, Tony Kushner, base their upcoming monstrosity, is even worse than it seems:

It is largely based on "Vengeance," a version of the Mossad missions by George Jonas, which has been discredited by Mossad officials and Israeli espionage experts.

According to Jonas, Israel largely abandoned its agents midmission in Europe, where several were hunted down and killed by Palestinian counterespionage teams.

Zvi Zamir, who headed Mossad at the time, said the version of events told by Jonas was "not true."

"I am surprised that a director like him has chosen, out of all the sources, to rely on this particular book," said Zamir of Spielberg's project.

Spielberg has said his movie would show Israel's response "through the eyes of the men who were sent to avenge that tragedy."

"By experiencing how the implacable resolve of these men to succeed in their mission slowly gave way to troubling doubts about what they were doing, I think we can learn something important about the tragic standoff we find ourselves in today," said Spielberg.

"It's about how vengeance doesn't ... work -- blood breeds blood," actor Daniel Craig told Empire magazine.

So that's Spielberg's little game, eh? To join the author of the wretched source material in spreading lies about both sides of the matter, by saying that the Israeli agents "died" on their mission, and that the PLO actually had "counterespionage teams". Like I said in this earlier topic, this is looking very bad indeed.

And while I'm on the subject, I think I'm going to have to analyze a reply to the topic on Schlussel's website, when one person there said:

Does it really matter? It's just a movie...and anybody with any real intellegence will actively find out mroe about the events that the movie portrays if the subject interests them.

Movies like so may other forms of expresion such as music, books and even your own blog are about a point of view, or a persons interpretation of something. If it really bothers you so much, why not contact Spielberg himself to express your concerns?

After all...nobody will be forced to watch this movie, or take it at face value.

Just how many more times do we have to hear that classic argument, "it's only entertainment"? By now, it's become a very serious cliche, one that we don't need.

So the next person was absolutely correct when he said that:

...if it matters so little, why you making such a fuss over Debbie's column?

I think TRUTH matters a lot. If you clicked on the first link Debbie provided Spielberg himself called it, "a defining moment in the modern history of the Middle East,", so it sounds like he agrees on one point with Debbie that it is important. I think it's just lazy to say it's just someone's "point of view." That doesn't mean it's factual.

Very true. People like the first respondent may think that we're making a fuss over nothing, but then, that is exactly why they too should consider the possibility that they too are making a fuss over nothing.

The first person then says:

I'm not making any fuss, just putting forth my own opinion.

Just because it was a defining moment in histroy, doesn't mean it is not open to interpretation, and we need to allow for this before we start shouting people down.

I just think it's more constructive to first understand where somebody is coming from, in order to better out your own point forward.

But y'know...that's just me.

No kidding. Since when was a serious subject like this "open to interpretation" without any second thoughts? That's PC lunacy for you, everybody.

And the poster's use of the word "defining", which Spielberg himself used as well, is also very troubling. Is that in any ways like using the word "classic"? Uh oh.

Labels: Moonbattery, showbiz